The distinctions between non-dualism and emptiness seem - to me at least - heavily dependent on the framing of those terms in the first place. You can't just take them on face value, so then you end up talking about what experience is like, instead of 'emptiness', per se. Tricky.
Even the greatest yogis get ensnared by the bear-traps left lying around by Nagarjuna. I'm way under qualified for this stuff, eg: Jigme Lingpa was rangtongpa when discussing from sutrayana level. Dudjom Rinpoche was a shentongpa. But both talk Dzogchen when talking Dzogchen.
-
-
-
Once you use the term 'doctrine', you've already shifted the conversation to a tangled, looping web of context-dependant doctrines. You can't say 'doctrine' and then talk about your interpretation of what the doctrine is. It's a magic word. A shitty magic word at that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.